Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

So a team that lost in the first round is a championship contender, but the Pacers are not? I'm just trying to figure out how you define what a "contender" is, because there's something a little off with this.

Are you nitpicking my argument or do you really want to know? Obviously Chicago was a contender. Until last years MVP was injured. I shouldn't have to repeat that.

Are you assuming a deal won't be made?
But if we hit the trade deadline first in our division and 2nd in the East, why would we make a deal?

I think West, Hibbert and PG could come back better and we can compete next year. The only hole I see is Tyler.

For the record, at the trade deadline I believe we will be second in the east. ****, if Wade has some nagging injury we could be number one in the east! That doesn't mean we have the talent to actually win though. As I've stated before, this team cannot protect the rim, it will not win the rebound battle, and they don't have the superstars to make up for our deficiencies rebounding and defending.

I don't think you necessarily judge a team on how many wins they have. I mean that's a huge part of it, but you can evaluate the talent on whether they're good enough to actually beat a great team in a playoff series. No matter what this teams record is come the trade deadline? It absolutely will not change what will happen when they play Miami in the playoffs. They'll lose.

So yes I'd make a trade at the deadline if you could land someone else. Boston did it remember? Didn't necessarily work but they had a plan and went with it. They didn't feel they were good enough to win so they said screw our record we're going to try to make a move that can raise our teams potential.

Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

Read it and weep:

When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

I have a couple quibbles with your best case scenarios.

For example, Hibbert. You mentioned he's average at offense at best as a best case scenario. I would contend that he is already well above average offensively. He was 55th in the NBA in points per game last year which is a little above average. And he's efficient with that scoring. He was tied for 20th in FG percentage (and there were several players who scored less than he did above him). He shoots a pretty good free throw percentage for a big man with 71 percent last year.

And from a scouting perspective on Hibbert, he draws double teams frequently. Teams have been known to gameplan against stopping Hibbert first. That sort of attention isn't garnered on players who are barely average on the offensive end.

And for a team thing, you mentioned the team's best case scenario is an average rebounding team. But they were 9th in the NBA in rebounding margin just last year (even better in total rebounds, but that was mostly influenced by the Pacers style). Certainly their best case scenario is at least the same and maybe even a little better than they did just last year. Even with the same starting 5, they certainly have room to improve the bench's rebounding capability.

So the Pacers in best case are a bottom of the top 5 offense, bottom of the top 5 defense, and top 10 rebounding sort of team. I think that's the other area on where we differ. I don't think a team necessarily has to have a specialized skill to win a title. In that scenario, as you said, some teams could break down the Pacers defense, others could defend the Pacers well, and others could outrebound them. But the Pacers would still be contenders in that scenario because it's rare for a team to be that well balanced, and so the Pacers would have advantages over each of those teams who have that one elite skill.

Now there still is the thorny question of how likely it is that the Pacers hit that ceiling. The Pacers could easily not be true title contenders over the next 5 years. But their ceiling IMO is true title contention. I don't think the Pacers as currently constructed could ever be considered hands down the best team in the league even if they hit their ceiling, but they definitely could be in the mix.

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

For example, Hibbert. You mentioned he's average at offense at best as a best case scenario. I would contend that he is already well above average offensively. He was 55th in the NBA in points per game last year which is a little above average. And he's efficient with that scoring. He was tied for 20th in FG percentage (and there were several players who scored less than he did above him). He shoots a pretty good free throw percentage for a big man with 71 percent last year.

And from a scouting perspective on Hibbert, he draws double teams frequently. Teams have been known to gameplan against stopping Hibbert first. That sort of attention isn't garnered on players who are barely average on the offensive end.

And for a team thing, you mentioned the team's best case scenario is an average rebounding team. But they were 9th in the NBA in rebounding margin just last year (even better in total rebounds, but that was mostly influenced by the Pacers style). Certainly their best case scenario is at least the same and maybe even a little better than they did just last year. Even with the same starting 5, they certainly have room to improve the bench's rebounding capability.

So the Pacers in best case are a bottom of the top 5 offense, bottom of the top 5 defense, and top 10 rebounding sort of team. I think that's the other area on where we differ. I don't think a team necessarily has to have a specialized skill to win a title. In that scenario, as you said, some teams could break down the Pacers defense, others could defend the Pacers well, and others could outrebound them. But the Pacers would still be contenders in that scenario because it's rare for a team to be that well balanced, and so the Pacers would have advantages over each of those teams who have that one elite skill.

Now there still is the thorny question of how likely it is that the Pacers hit that ceiling. The Pacers could easily not be true title contenders over the next 5 years. But their ceiling IMO is true title contention. I don't think the Pacers as currently constructed could ever be considered hands down the best team in the league even if they hit their ceiling, but they definitely could be in the mix.

I can see that.

I guess as you said, I'm suggesting we need to have some sort of strength to rely on where as you're saying the Pacers strength in every area would make them be able to adapt to each opponent. Not sure I agree that would work, but I understand the reasoning.

Great post. Thanks.

Edit - That's a really great perspective and could explain why our office really has no intention of changing the starting five. The idea that a solid team from all angles could contend.

(I don't believe that'll work. I think a team like that just simply gets flat out beat. But I'm just trying to see it from a different angle)

Last edited by mattie; 08-16-2012 at 10:07 AM.

Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

Read it and weep:

When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

This is well written and I thanked it, but (as you might expect) I disagree with a number of points:

- I think we will have at least one if not 2 new starters within 2 years.

- I think we're only taking some time to see where this team develops with a full training camp and season behind it - making moves before you know what you really have is at some point just guesswork.

- We see the message coming from Pritchard and Vogel, not just Donnie, but of course it is always "Donnie's express goal"

- I fail to understand how, when the quality of our bench definitely affected our ability to hold leads in the playoffs and therefore we made some moves to improve the bench, that is not addressing something we needed to do to make the team better. Why is it only changes to the starting lineup that make the team better?

I still feel like much of the idea that we won't make any more moves comes from three places: Donnie's reputation for not making moves, the team not making moves this summer for various fan favorite FAs or trade targets, and the assumption that Herb Simon won't spend money.

Toward the first point - please remember that Donnie's reputation was really NOT that he made NO moves, it was that he got the team to a certain point AS A CONTENDER and then failed to make the final big move. He made lots of moves - many of them very unexpected and involving major components of the team - prior to the point when the Pacers were in the ECFs nearly every year. He was then criticized for tweaking things rather than trying for one big thing that would put the team over the top. After the Finals year, the next bold moves blew up in his face, but he MADE them. He was hoist with his own lingering concept of how things should work between teams and players, but it was NOT that he made NO major moves involving starters.

The second point is purely my opinion, there's not much to base it on other than the fact that people claim we really did nothing this offseason when we did a lot - just not what they wanted.

The third point seems a bit overwrought. We're going to be over the cap and up toward the LT. If Herb wanted to be Donald Sterling I think we wouldn't be spending anywhere near that much. Herb doesn't strike me as a wishy-washy guy - if he wanted to not spend money we would not spend it, period. We spent the money, we just didn't spend it in a way some people felt was advantageous.

BillS

"Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
- Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

Are you assuming a deal won't be made?
But if we hit the trade deadline first in our division and 2nd in the East, why would we make a deal?

I think West, Hibbert and PG could come back better and we can compete next year. The only hole I see is Tyler.

Tyler is of no significan consequence. Many people keep thinking that everyone will come back better. The only one who may be slightly better is PG. The rest of them you see what you are going to get. That is why I think they will slip a notch or two or three because the stood pat with their starters while others in the East improved..... I think they will be fighting for the sixth seed barring major injuries to the teams above them and the Pacers themselves. Last year was magic and it is not likely to be duplicated.....

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

That was not a hard prediction to do, good post though, as we know the Pacers are known for keeping their players until they are so hurt that they can't move so I expect West to be re-signed for 3 or 4 more years and then the year after that I expect Danny to be re-signed for another 3 or 4 years, Hill and Hibbert have 5 years left in their contracts and Paul George will get an extension for sure, so like you said I don't expect the Pacers to win anything in the next five years.

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

This is well written and I thanked it, but (as you might expect) I disagree with a number of points:

- I think we will have at least one if not 2 new starters within 2 years.

- I think we're only taking some time to see where this team develops with a full training camp and season behind it - making moves before you know what you really have is at some point just guesswork.

- We see the message coming from Pritchard and Vogel, not just Donnie, but of course it is always "Donnie's express goal"

- I fail to understand how, when the quality of our bench definitely affected our ability to hold leads in the playoffs and therefore we made some moves to improve the bench, that is not addressing something we needed to do to make the team better. Why is it only changes to the starting lineup that make the team better?

I still feel like much of the idea that we won't make any more moves comes from three places: Donnie's reputation for not making moves, the team not making moves this summer for various fan favorite FAs or trade targets, and the assumption that Herb Simon won't spend money.

Toward the first point - please remember that Donnie's reputation was really NOT that he made NO moves, it was that he got the team to a certain point AS A CONTENDER and then failed to make the final big move. He made lots of moves - many of them very unexpected and involving major components of the team - prior to the point when the Pacers were in the ECFs nearly every year. He was then criticized for tweaking things rather than trying for one big thing that would put the team over the top. After the Finals year, the next bold moves blew up in his face, but he MADE them. He was hoist with his own lingering concept of how things should work between teams and players, but it was NOT that he made NO major moves involving starters.

The second point is purely my opinion, there's not much to base it on other than the fact that people claim we really did nothing this offseason when we did a lot - just not what they wanted.

The third point seems a bit overwrought. We're going to be over the cap and up toward the LT. If Herb wanted to be Donald Sterling I think we wouldn't be spending anywhere near that much. Herb doesn't strike me as a wishy-washy guy - if he wanted to not spend money we would not spend it, period. We spent the money, we just didn't spend it in a way some people felt was advantageous.

Honestly my prediction on what Kevin and Donnie plan to do is based on what they have said in the media. Obviously you have gotten a completely different perspective on what they want to do. It makes a lot of sense and has me doubting my thoughts on the whole matter. (The fact that you predict possibly two new starters absolutely blows my mind. I guess I could have completely misread Kevin and Donnie)

I mean, based on history I know Donnie's made moves. He traded for Derrick McKey, he landed Mark Jackson twice, he got Mullin, he traded Antonio Davis (at his request) etc.

What has me worried, and maybe I've completely read the wrong, is I think they believe the bench is all that needs improving. It's not that I believe the "only way you can improve" is by changing the starting lineup, it's just I feel that starting lineup is flawed in such a way that no bench can overcompensate for the starting lineups errors. If that makes sense.

I love the moves this offseason by the way. Love the pickup of Green, love the pickup of DJ and Mahinmi.

Last edited by mattie; 08-16-2012 at 10:31 AM.

Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

Read it and weep:

When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

And if you want me to be really honest, the Pacers will probably never win a Championship. Why? Because we are now playing in a league where if you aren't a big market team no one cares. Mix that with the fact that our front office refuses to lose(which is good and bad) and we don't have a shot. Even if we did luck out and land a superstar in a draft(which wouldn't be for a while if ever), he probably would just pull a LeBron, Dwight, Deron, Paul, ect who couldn't win Championships with their original teams.

So why am I a Pacers fan? Because I have some masochist type of loyalty to the teams I love and I love the Indiana Pacers. And if that day ever comes, where we by some miracle and against all odds do win the Championship, it will be that much sweeter. To say we stuck with them through everything only to finally see them come out on top. That's the dream, hopefully we all get it someday. Realistically, I don't see it happening though.

Bingo!!! The small market teams are nothing but a minor league feeder system for the big market teams. The Pacers only made on run to the finals in their history. It is not likely to happen again....

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

I don't care if the Pacers win a Championship. So many people refer to the team as "we" but if they win, I don't get a share of the money or a trophy or any credit for the victories. I'm a basketball fan and the Pacers are the pro franchise in my city, which is great because it means I get to see pro hoops a lot. To that end, what I need the Pacers to do in exchange for my money is present a good product. The 2011/2012 team was a good product and it looks like a good product should be on the court for several years to come. I'm going to enjoy that while I can.

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

(The fact that you predict possibly two new starters absolutely blows my mind. I guess I could have completely misread Kevin and Donnie)

I did say within 2 years. I don't think we'll have a new starter this year, but I could definitely see not retaining West or trading either West or Hill. I really don't think anyone sees Hill as the permanent PG, just as the one for THIS season.

What has me worried, and maybe I've completely read the wrong, is I think they believe the bench is all that needs improving. It's not that I believe the "only way you can improve" is by changing the starting lineup, it's just I feel that starting lineup is flawed in such a way that no bench can overcompensate for the starting lineups errors. If that makes sense.

I think people get impatient and believe that if the priority was to improve the bench FIRST it somehow means that the ONLY priority was to improve the bench. To be honest, you get a lot more bang for the buck improving the bench - you'll end up overpaying a starter anyway so you'd better have a real good idea that the starter is exactly who you need. After all, if you get a top level starter and still go in the toilet every time he sits you aren't going to do much better than you did without him.

BillS

"Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
- Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

I did say within 2 years. I don't think we'll have a new starter this year, but I could definitely see not retaining West or trading either West or Hill. I really don't think anyone sees Hill as the permanent PG, just as the one for THIS season.

I think people get impatient and believe that if the priority was to improve the bench FIRST it somehow means that the ONLY priority was to improve the bench. To be honest, you get a lot more bang for the buck improving the bench - you'll end up overpaying a starter anyway so you'd better have a real good idea that the starter is exactly who you need. After all, if you get a top level starter and still go in the toilet every time he sits you aren't going to do much better than you did without him.

True.

They could definitely pull the trigger on Horford, and then hypothetically he ends up marginally better than West only we're stuck with his contract.

And you're definitely right. Some of it is based on what they have said in the media, but definitely there is some impatience thinking they have no intentions on making any other moves. As I said before, I wouldn't say a word or be worried a bit if I had some indication they want to make necessary improvements.

I'll tell you this much: If I heard tomorrow "sources" heard Kevin was talking to Atlanta, I wouldn't say another word. That'd be enough for me.

Edit - I never doubted Larry by the way. He always seemed to be clear about the future of the team so it was easy for me to buy in to what he's doing. I'm not even saying he did a good job either way. I just completely bought into his competency I guess you could say.

Last edited by mattie; 08-16-2012 at 11:05 AM.

Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

Read it and weep:

When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

What is the point of posts like this? Just curious. To establish what? You ultimately feel there is no hope? Okay, whatev. Why root for a team if you honestly feel this way? This is along the same lines as reading most of OlBlu's posts... just no hope at all.

Pacers: "We've improved drastically over the last two years, we have new management, young promising talent, a stud young coach --- therefore, I have substantial reason to believe we've plateau'd and we'll never change or improve beyond our current state at all and it's basically downhill from here."
Colts: "We just spent a decade being awesome, our old regime wore out, our new regime looks really promising, we're cleaning out the bad contracts, we just landed the single most highly rated player in history, and surrounded him with amazing young talents --- therefore, I have substantial reason to believe we're going to suck bad not only this year, but at least a decade hereafter."

Logical.

Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-16-2012 at 11:09 AM.

There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

What is the point of posts like this? Just curious. To establish what? You ultimately feel there is no hope? Okay, whatev. Why root for a team if you honestly feel this way? This is the same lines as reading most of OlBlu's post... just no hope at all.

Pacers: "We've improved drastically over the last two years, we have new management --- therefore, I have substantial reason to believe we've plateau'd and we'll never change or improve beyond our current state at all and it's basically downhill from here."
Colts: "We just spent a decade being awesome, our old regime wore out, our new regime looks really promising, we're cleaning out the bad contracts, we just landed the single most highly rated player in history, and surrounded him with amazing young talents --- therefore, I have substantial reason to believe we're going to suck bad not only this year, but at least a decade hereafter."

Logical.

I thought I was clear in the original post. I'm very happy and excited about the coming seasons. I'm not down or disappointed. I was just suggesting, and predicting, based off of our front offices comments what I felt the direction of the franchise was.

4 years ago Larry gave us a clear plan. I could be completely wrong, but I felt Donnie gave us a plan that suggested little improvement.

Every year that Larry said "we need to improve" was all I ever needed. That's it. I guess I'm wrong, but I gathered Kevin/Donnie want minor improvements to the bench.

The point of the thread? For everyone to prove how wrong I am so I can get excited about future moves.

Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

Read it and weep:

When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

Great post. Not really disagreeing with you but I did want to express what my complaints are against the front office. I see a marked difference between Donnie and Bird. Bird clearly had a problem with the teams talent level.

If Donnie came out tomorrow and said we have issues that need to be addressed at some point, I'd forget it once and for all. I personally believe, and I could be wrong, that our front office thinks the starting five going forward is good enough to beat Miami and that is just wrong.

I know it is extremely difficult to field a true title contender. I just want that to be the goal is all. I think our front office believes that once Roy, Hill and Paul hit their peaks that will happen. I disagree. I don't think we'll be much better in three years than we are now. There isn't much room for this to peak is all.

The Pacers only issue is that they're not Miami. It's a good possibility we'll be 2nd in the East: our group is solid. I'm not trying to attack your viewpoint here, but let me say this: many people are looking at how quickly Miami and Los Angeles became super teams and think we can do it too. We can't. The best way for us to win a championship is with a slow and steady approach, which is exactly what we're doing.

The Following User Says Thank You to adamscb For This Useful Post:

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

I like what the Pacers did this year. If Hibbert makes some improvements to his game, and adds a bit more endurance we can beat the Heat. And if you beat the Heat in the East then you have a shot at winning the East. As we all know with Hibbert on the floor we outscored Miami in the playoffs. Adding Manhimi and Plumlee to foul/block LeBron and Wade when they take it to the hoop when Hibbert is out of the game also helps. Also, while the Heat has a star in his prime and another star on the decline. We have Granger in his prime, West maybe on a bit of a decline but solid leadership, and every other player on our roster will only get better with time. Who on Miami besides LeBron is showing that they will be able to play at the same level or better for years to come. Maybe Chalmers?

By the way anyone who says Sixers, Knicks, and Nets are better than the Pacers are just doubters. Even Vegas odds has the low market Pacers as the third most likely team to come out of the East after Miami and Chicago.

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

I think it was a very cogent statement representing the sentiments of a lot of people on the forum, done in a way that set forth the arguments in a matter-of-fact fashion without any unnecessary "sky is falling" platitudes or (not-so-)subtle digs at the competency of the FO or ownership.

A very pleasant thread even if I completely disagree with the conclusion.

BillS

"Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
- Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

I don't care if the Pacers win a Championship. So many people refer to the team as "we" but if they win, I don't get a share of the money or a trophy or any credit for the victories. I'm a basketball fan and the Pacers are the pro franchise in my city, which is great because it means I get to see pro hoops a lot. To that end, what I need the Pacers to do in exchange for my money is present a good product. The 2011/2012 team was a good product and it looks like a good product should be on the court for several years to come. I'm going to enjoy that while I can.

Quoting this post to prove the point I was trying to make yesterday on the other thread, some people are just happy to "compete".

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

Your theory that West's defensive and rebounding weaknesses is our key problem in getting past Miami is certainly plausible. But that's not where I am.

I think our key problem has been a stagnant offense. Granger, Hill, and PG are all similar type players: Good defenders, long, good perimeter shooters, okay to questionable on driving to the hole, and, at the end of the day, unable to create their own shot. Neither can any of them feed the post that well. Three starters. That's a problem.

If it weren't for David West, our offense would really stagnate.

Had we fixed the point guard problem this summer, or if Lance breaks out, then I could see ideas for trading West to beef up the front line to improve defense and rebounding.

I don't have the answer, but I don't think yours is an answer either. An Ibaka for West type trade screws our offense. An Ibake type player who has West's offensive skills is a superstar we could not obtain.

Last edited by McKeyFan; 08-16-2012 at 02:58 PM.

.

.

.

.

"I like our group of people," Ainge told USA Today. "I'm trying to teach them about basketball, and they're trying to teach me about analytics."